NM points from captured or transferred resources

[mdsmall]

I recently had the following exchage with Bill in order to understand how majors gain NM points from captured resources in the game. His answers explained a couple of features of the game engine that I had not understood before, so I thought other readers would benefit from reading this. Bill's answers to my questions are in italics below.

------------

Hi Bill,

I am trying to understand all the circumstances in which a power can or cannot gain NM points by gaining territory. The base case is pretty clear: if Germany (say) occupies Russian resource hexes, then Germany gains the NM value for those resource hexes and Russia’s loses the same amount. But what about the following situations:

a) a minor (say Bulgaria) enters the war and joins the CP side. Does the controlling major(in this case, Germany) gain the NM points each turn from the resource hexes of Bulgaria?

No, only scripted events can provide benefits/penalties for the occupation of Minors’ resources.

b) Germany invades a minor (say Belgium). Belgium automatically joins the Entente. Germany gains the NM points every turn for the Belgian resource hexes it captures. Does the UK gain the NM points for the remaining resource hexes under Belgian control?

No, Germany only benefits from occupying Belgian resources if there are scripts to provide them with these benefits.
The UK does not benefit at all, but could if scripted to do so.

c) Territory is transferred after an armistice from one major to another - say from Russia to Germany after Brest Litovsk. Does Germany gain every turn the NM points from the new resources in Poland that have been transferred to it under the treaty?

Not at all, as it is now German territory.

d) territory is transferred by a DE script from a neutral minor to a major (in the Icarus mod, Greece can transfer Corfu to France after Serbia falls, but Greece remains neutral minor). In this case, are the NM points for Corfu (12 for the port and 12 for the town) earned by France every turn?

No, because it is now part of France’s core territory and Majors’ NM does not benefit from their own resources, unless scripted.

e) Later in the game, Austria-Hungary captures Corfu from France in combat. Does it start to accrue the NM points for Corfu? Is that amount now subtracted from France every turn?

Yes, as Corfu is part of France, a Major.

Many thanks in advance for your answers to each of these situations

[Bavre]

Um, maybe dumb question, but doesn't all stuff belonging to minors have NM value 0 anyway?
Or did that change somehow?

[BillRunacre]

Um, maybe dumb question, but doesn't all stuff belonging to minors have NM value 0 anyway?
Or did that change somehow?

Nothing has changed, hence my answer to one of Michael's questions: "only scripted events can provide benefits/penalties for the occupation of Minors’ resources".

[mdsmall]

One interesting consequence of these provisions - which I had not fully focussed on before - is that Germany will actually lose NM points by signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This happens because the occupied resources in Poland transferred to it under the Treaty will now be treated as German territory, while Germany will no longer earn NM points for the other Russian resources it formerly occupied that are now in the newly independent states.

As I count it, if Germany before the Treaty controls all the resources behind a line running from Riga, Dvinsk, Minsk, Rovno down to Proskurov, inclusive, it will earning 326 NM points every turn. After the Treaty, while it gains 150 NM points from food imports from Ukraine (if 12 units are within 8 hexes of Warsaw), it will lose all those resource NM points, and thus has a net loss from the Treaty of 176 NM points per turn. Of course, it should gain the strategic advantage of being able to send most of its armies from the East to the Western Front. But I am a little surprised that for Germany, the Treaty is a net NM loss rather than a gain. I would be interested to know the devs thinking behind this.

It is also worth pointing out that (at least from my limited reading of the history) the three Baltic states remained under the control of Ober Ost until after Germany signed the armistice in November 1918. However, I can see why for game entine reasons, the devs decided that all three states would declare their independence immediately after the Treaty is signed, as there is no way that Germany can continue to earn MPPs and NM points from those occupied territories after the original major that owned them (Russia) has withdrawn from the war.

Bill - please correct the above observations, as needed.

Michael

[BillRunacre]

The exact NM differential depends on where the Central Powers are on the Eastern Front at the point when the treaty of Brest-Litovsk is signed.

However, by signing it, in addition to freeing up CP units for service on the Western Front or elsewhere, there are the NM penalties that this imposes on France (-5,000 points); UK (-2,500) and Serbia (-2,500). This therefore incentivizes attempting to end the war quickly with an offensive in the west.

Not signing the treaty and continuing to hold territory in the east and fighting against the Russian army is not aiming towards this end, so while the NM benefits of signing the treaty may be outweighed by resource ownership in the east, there are other things the CP will be missing out on by not signing the treaty.

[mdsmall]

Bill - you are of course absolutely right. The immediate strategic benefits of ending the war with Russia are so obvious that I have never seen the CP side not accept the Treaty when irt is offered in a multi-player match. I think it is only when playing against the AI on one of the lower experience settings that a Central Powers player will feel they can afford the time to go for broke and try to push Russia to surrender. (If anyone has rejected the Treaty as the CP side in a multi-player match, it would be interesting to hear).

My comment was a more limited one: that the actual NM gain to Germany of signing the Treaty in terms of guaranteed food supplies from Ukraine is more than offset by the loss of NM points from the occupied territories in the East. One could imagine that Germany would get at least a modest NM boost by signing the Treaty, in addition to the heavy NM penalties suffered by the other Entente powers when Russia withdraws from the war. Was it your reading of the history that there was no sense of relief by the German or Austro-Hungarian public when Russia withdrew from the war? Or was it simply that in game balance terms, the other strategic benefits the CP side gets by signing the Treaty are more than sufficient to motivate the CP players to accept Russia's offer?

[BillRunacre]

Both really, people were just worn out by the time the treaty was signed and wanted it all to be over. The prospect of extra fighting was a significant factor in something like 10% of the German army deserting while en route from the east to the Western Front.